證據蒐集節次의 擴充을 위한 外國 立法例 硏究

A study on foreign legal system for expanding procedures of evidence collection In Korea, just as in the United States, preparation for civil litigation necessarily involves the collection and examination of evidence and data. However, fundamental differences exist in both the way trials are conducted in Korea and the methods by which evidence may be procured. Modeled after German civil procedure rules, most evidence production in Korea takes place at trial. Authority and control over the gathering of evidentiary facts is vested in the court, with the judge assuming the primary responsibility for taking and receiving evidence. Korean attorneys have no real power to compel the production of evidence or to elicit testimony from either adverse parties or third parties, and must therefore rely on voluntary cooperation or seek intervention by the court. This is in stark contrast to U.S. discovery, which is conducted mostly by the parties themselves with only minimal court supervision. Frustration and chronic delay in Germany and in Japanese resulted in increasing calls in Germany and in Japan for reformation of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly relating to provisions for the collection of evidence. The German Code of Civil Procedure, there is selbständiges Beweisverfahren . The Japanese Code of Civil Procedure, there are essentially several means commonly employed by Japanese attorneys for collecting evidence. In 2003 year, additional reformation of evidence collecting methods in Japan continued. The benefits of further expanding methods of evidence collection will likely be felt in Korea.